The concept of transformational leadership has drawn a considerable attention from management researchers and specialists. This concept has been initiated by Burns (1978) and developed by Bass (1985) to include certain behaviours of a transformational leader and being role models in front of their followers which will result in building trust with followers and achieving value congruence between leaders and followers. The effect of school leadership on educational outcomes has been widely debated in recent decades. Currently, school systems around the globe are focusing on student achievements empowering school leaders along with curriculum and accountability frameworks.
The paper aims to provide an overview of research on the effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and educational outcomes. It refers to eight research projects conducted in many different school systems based on quantitative method approach comprising small scale medium size and mega research projects for the benefits of all types of school stakeholders on how a leader can improve student achievements.
The first article that is reviewed is a paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand in November 2002 titled The Impact of Transformational Leadership Style of the School Principal on School Learning Environments and Selected Teacher Outcomes: A Preliminary Report by Alan Barnett.
The purpose of this paper is to report on an investigation of the relationships between the transformational and transactional leadership behaviours of school principals in New South Wales State secondary schools and some selected teacher outcomes and school learning environment constructs.
The theoretical framework presented in this paper is based on a mediated-effects model of effective schools as discussed by Hallinger and Heck (1998, p.162). The writer acknowledges that antecedent variables can have an important causal influence that effect desired outcomes such as student achievement. However, the writer mentioned that the focus of this study is to examine the relationship between the leadership practices of the principal and school and classroom variables, namely school learning environment and teacher satisfaction.
A survey was carried out in 52 randomly selected schools involving 458 teachers from across New South Wales. The staff sample size (n=458) consisted of 200 males (43.7%) and 235 (51.3%) females (missing = 23 or 5.0%), the majority of whom (60.0%) were full time teachers. A smaller number (n=132) came from promotions positions held within their schools (28.9%). The majority of respondents (n=340; 74.2%) had more than 11 years teaching experience, and had been in their current school for more than 6 years (49.1%). 291 staff (63.5%) reported teaching within their current principal for more than 2 years.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Short) developed by Bass and Avolio (1997) was used to measure leadership behaviour, while, the School Learning Environment Questionnaire developed by Fraser (1986) was used to assess school learning environment. Factor analysis was used to determine the validity of the leadership model developed by Bass and Avolio (1997) and the school learning environment model developed by Fraser (1986) in the Australian school context. The factor analysis of leadership items suggested that one transformational factor (vision), one transformational/transactional hybrid factor (individualised consideration) and one non-leadership factor (laissez-faire) factor were evident. The analysis of school learning environment items identified seven factors. Four outcome factors were incorporated that is the overall satisfaction with leadership, perceptions of teacher influence, perceptions of teacher effectiveness, and perceptions of teacher control.
Multilevel modelling analysis was used to explore the relationship between leadership behaviours, school learning environment factors and teacher outcomes. Contrary to what might be expected, results from the analysis of the leadership behaviours factors with teacher outcomes suggested that teacher outcomes like overall satisfaction with leadership is more closely and highly correlated with individualised consideration rather than with vision. Further, the leadership behaviour factors demonstrated differential correlations with each of the school learning environment factors, indicating that principals may target their leadership behaviour to have maximum impact in any effort at modifying school learning environment.
The second article that is reviewed is a research by Kerry Barnett, John McCormick and Robert Conners from University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, titled Transformational leadership: Panacea, placebo, or problem? taken from the Journal of Educational Administration volume 39, pages 24 to 46 (2001).
The purpose of this study is to report on an investigation of the relationships between the transformational and transactional leadership behaviours of school principals in selected New South Wales State secondary schools with some teacher outcomes and aspects of school learning culture. Teacher outcomes in concern here are extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction. Attributes of transformational leadership and school learning culture was laid down as theoretical framework in this study.
A survey was carried out in 12 randomly selected secondary schools located in the Sydney Metropolitan area in New South Wales, Australia, and 15 randomly selected teachers from each school were requested to complete questionnaires. Of the 12 schools, 124 teachers returned completed questionnaires representing a 68 percent response rate. The sample comprised 54 percent female and 46 percent male teachers and 75 percent were aged 30-59 years. The teachers in the sample held various positions in the school, including full-time classroom teachers (57 percent), head teachers (23 percent), deputy principals (5 percent) and others, such as librarians, careers advisers, part-time teachers, support teachers (15 percent). A total of 64 percent of the sample had more than 11 years of teaching experience and 60 percent had three to ten years of this experience at their current school.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) developed by Bass and Avolio (1997) was used to measure leadership style, while, The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) developed by Maehr et al.(1996) was used to measure the dimensions of school-learning culture. Factor analysis with principal axis factoring using SPSS determined the validity of the leadership model proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997) and the school-learning culture model proposed by Maehr et al. (1996). The factor analysis of leadership items suggested that there were two factors which were transformational, two factors which were transactional and one teacher outcome factor. The analysis of school-learning culture items identified five school learning culture factors.
The transformational leadership behaviour (individual concern) was associated with the teacher outcomes - satisfaction, extra effort and perception of leader effectiveness. Contrary to what might be expected, transformational leadership behaviour (vision/inspiration) had a significant negative association with student learning culture. Significant interactions were found between vision/inspiration and active management by exception with intrinsic motivation for learning and between passive management by exception and vision/inspiration with extrinsic motivation for learning. This suggests that the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership behaviour and school-learning culture is more complex than might be first thought.
The third article that is reviewed is a research by Femke Geijsel and Peter Sleegers from the Department of Educational Sciences, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi from the Centre for Leadership Development, OISE/University of Toronto, Canada, titled Transformational leadership effects on teachers' commitment and effort toward school reform, taken from the Journal of Educational Administration, volume 41, pages 228 to 256 (2003).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of transformational school leadership on the commitment of teachers to school reform, and the effort they are willing to devote to such reform. It does so by building on the knowledge from both educational and non-educational research into such effects. A model of such effects is tested using two approximately comparable sets of quantitative data collected independently by research teams in Canada and The Netherlands. Structural equation modeling is applied to test the model within each data set. Results of the Canadian and Dutch studies are then compared.
The framework used to guide the inquiry about transformational leadership effects consists of nine specific variables embedded in three general constructs, as well as the relationships among these variables and constructs. According to this framework, transformational forms of school leadership have direct effects on teachers' commitment to school reform and the extra effort they devote to such reform. Such leadership also has indirect effects on teacher effort through teacher motivation. Although not measured in these studies, it is assumed that teachers' extra commitment and effort results in changes in their interactions with students which, in turn, influences students' outcomes.
Dutch data were collected from a survey carried out in 45 secondary schools throughout The Netherlands involving 1,347 teachers. At the time of data collection, all secondary schools were confronted with mandated large-scale school reform. Canadian data were collected in one large district in eastern Canada. All 1,444 teachers in 43 junior high and high schools in the district were surveyed, half receiving Form A and half Form B of the survey. At the time of data collection, all schools in this district were confronted with expectations for substantial change from both the district and provincial government that clearly called for the exercise of school-level leadership.
Both studies collected data about length of teaching experience and gender. Teachers in the Dutch sample had slightly more teaching experience than their Canadian counterparts: 63 percent as compared with 59 percent with more than 15 years' experience. Independent sample t-tests in the Dutch sample show teachers with relatively longer experience to score significantly higher on the variables "individual consideration" and "participation in decision making" and significantly lower on the variables "capacity beliefs" and "context beliefs" than their colleagues with less experience. The gender balance differed greatly, with male teachers comprising 70 percent of the Dutch sample compared with 47 percent of the Canadian sample. An independent sample t-test of the latter group identified only one variable in which gender differences were evident: females rated "personal goals" higher than their male colleagues, suggesting gender was not a significant factor in overall response patterns in the Canadian study. Independent sample t-tests in the Dutch sample indicated that females rated "capacity beliefs" and "context beliefs" higher, and "participation in decision making" lower than the males. For both teaching experience and gender, the actual differences in the mean scores of the Dutch teachers are small (0:2), so these background variables were not expected to have a serious impact on the results of the study.
The Dutch survey consisted of 60 items (54 of which were used in this study) rated on four-point scales with five variables measured on a Likert scale (disagree to agree) and two variables (participation in decision making and professional development activities) using the options "never", "sometimes", "often", and "always". The Canadian instrument contained 186 items (55 of which were used for this study), rated on a five-point scale ("strongly disagree" to "strongly agree") with a "not applicable" response option, as well. Although each study used its own instrument, they both addressed the same three sets of variables:: transformational leadership: vision building, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation; teacher commitment to change: capacity beliefs, context beliefs; extra effort: participation in decision making
In the Dutch study, the factorial validity of the constructs was examined in a first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL VIII (maximum likelihood method). Based on the factorial structure resulting from the CFA, scales were constructed for each of the variables and reliability analyses indicated all scales to be reliable. The Canadian study conducted exploratory factor analyses using principal components extraction with varimax rotation to analyze eight sets of items selected from the larger study based on their conceptual link to the variables in this study.
The research model depicts transformational leadership dimensions directly influencing teachers' motivational processes and teachers' extra effort. The LISREL approach (LISREL VIII, maximum likelihood method) (JoÂ¨reskog and SoÂ¨rbom, 1999) was used to conduct structural equation modeling (SEM) because it allows for testing the validity of causal inferences for pairs of variables while controlling for the effects of other variables. Multiple fit indices are necessary for the evaluation of structural equation modeling (Bollen and Long, 1993). The Chi-square test is the traditional measure used to test the closeness of fit between the observed covariance matrix and the model representation of the covariance matrix. In addition to the Chi-square test, three other indices are reported: the "root mean square error of approximation" (RMSEA); the "expected cross-validation index" (ECVI); and the comparative fit index (CFI). The fit indices were used to establish the fit of the Dutch and the Canadian models separately because the Dutch and Canadian models serve independently collected data sets that are not compatible.
The findings show transformational leadership dimensions affect both teachers' commitment and extra effort. The effects of the dimension's vision building and intellectual stimulation appear to be significant in particular. Both the Dutch and the Canadian study found the dimensions of transformational leadership to have modest effects on teacher commitment to reform. Of all dimensions, vision building and intellectual stimulation were reported to have a significant effect on teacher commitment and extra effort, unlike individualised consideration which was found to have the weakest influence.
The fourth article that is reviewed is a research by William L. Koh from Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore and Richard M. Steers and James R. Terborg from Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, titled The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, taken from the Journal of Organisational Behaviour, volume 16, pages 319 to 333, (1995).
The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of transformational leader behaviour by school principals as it related to organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, teacher satisfaction with leader, and student academic performance in Singapore.
To guide the study, four hypotheses were set forth: transformational leadership factors will have significant positive add-on effects to transactional leadership factors in predicting organizational citizenship behaviour; transformational leadership factors will have significant positive add-on effects to transactional leadership factors in predicting subordinate commitment to the school; transformational leadership factors will have significant positive add-on effects to transactional leadership factors in predicting satisfaction with the leader; and transformational leadership factors will have significant positive add-on effects to transactional leadership factors in predicting objective measures of student performance.
A survey was carried out in 100 randomly selected secondary schools involving 2000 teachers in Singapore. From the selected schools, teachers who had been there at least one calendar year formed the sampling frame for the selection of teachers. Twenty teachers were randomly selected from each school. To avoid common source variance, ratings of leadership and outcome variables were obtained using a split sample technique. Specifically, 10 teachers responded to questionnaires which measured satisfaction with the leader and organizational commitment, while the other 10 assessed the leadership styles of the school principals.
Attitudinal and behavioural data were collected from both teachers and principals; student academic performance was collected from school records. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5S (MLQ) developed by Bass (1985) was used to measure leadership style; the Organizational citizenship behaviour for teachers was operationalized and measured using an instrument developed by Smith, Organ and Near (1983); the Organizational commitment was measured using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), developed by Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982).; and teacher satisfaction with the principal was measured using the leader subscale of the Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR), developed by Smith (1976). Pilot surveys were conducted in four schools before the primary study was initiated. Oblique factor analysis and Orthogonal rotation was performed on the MLQ items; factor analysis, principal components analysis and oblique rotation was performed on the OCQ items; while OCB and IOR went through factor analysis.
School level analyses showed that transformational leadership had significant add-on effects to transactional leadership in the prediction of organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, and teacher satisfaction. Moreover, transformational leadership was found to have indirect effects on student academic achievement. Finally, it was found that transactional leadership had little add-on effect on transformational leadership in predicting outcomes.
The fifth article that is reviewed is a research by Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi from Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada, titled Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practice taken from the School Effectiveness and School Improvement, volume 17, pages 201 to 227 (2006).
The purpose of this paper is to report on the effects of a school-specific model of transformational leadership on teachers (motivation, capacities, and work settings), their classroom practices, and gains in student achievement. The theoretical framework presented in this paper assumes that for large-scale reform to achieve its own goals, school staffs must be motivated to respond to the reform in some locally meaningful and productive way. Teachers' motivations, capacities, and work settings have a direct effect on their school and classroom practices. These practices are clearly intended to improve student learning but may or may not do so depending on their effectiveness. Transformational school leadership practices on the part of ''those in positions of responsibility,'' to use the language in our measures, have both direct and indirect effects on teachers' practices, the indirect effects being realized through leaders' influence on teachers' motivation, capacity, and work settings.
The teacher data from a larger 4-year evaluation of England's National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies were used for this study. Two representative samples of 500 schools each were selected, one sample to provide evidence from teachers about National Literacy Strategies (NLS) and one to provide evidence about National Numeracy Strategies(NNS). Both samples were selected at random from England's National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) database of schools to be representative of the whole of England's primary school population in terms of school type, national curriculum test results, region, and proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Independent schools were included in the sample, even though the NLS and NNS were not compulsory in these schools, since some of them were choosing to implement all or part of the strategies anyway.
Two forms of a Likert-type teacher survey were developed to measure all constructs in the framework except student achievement. One form focused on NLS and one on NNS. These instruments, field tested and refined over several stages, included a 5-point response scale for most questions (1 strongly disagree, 2 agree, 3 undecided, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree). The measures of student achievement were gains in Key Stage 2 results.
Survey responses were analyzed at both individual and school levels. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to calculate means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, correlation coefficients, and to aggregate individual responses by school, as appropriate. Independent sample t tests were used to compare mean ratings of literacy respondents to those of numeracy respondents to determine whether differences were statistically significant. Paired samples t tests were used to compare mean ratings of specific components within a strategy that is reading and writing for literacy or mental mathematics and mathematical concepts for numeracy. LISREL was used to assess the direct and indirect effects of leadership on motivation, capacity, and situation, as well as the effects of all these variables on altered teacher practices. This path analytic technique allows for testing the validity of causal inferences for pairs of variables while controlling for the effects of other variables. Data were analyzed using the LISREL 8 analysis of covariance structure approach to path analysis and maximum likelihood estimates (JoÂ¨ reskog & SoÂ¨rbom, 1993).
Using path analytic techniques, the authors found that transformational leadership had very strong direct effects on teachers' work settings and motivations; and significant effects on teachers' classroom practices. Specifically, leadership, along with teacher motivation, capacity, and work setting explained about 25% to 35% in teachers' classroom practices. However, there were no significant effects of leadership on student achievement.
The sixth article that is reviewed is a research by John A. Ross and Peter Gray, titled School Leadership and Student Achievement: The Mediating Effects of Teacher Beliefs taken from the Canadian Journal of Education volume 29, number 3, pages 798 to 822 (2006).
The purpose of this paper is to report on a research on how principals contribute to student achievement indirectly through teacher commitment and beliefs about their collective capacity. The theoretical framework presented in this paper hypothesized a model linking leadership to student achievement through teacher capacity building. The model predicts that transformational leadership will influence teachers' professional commitment, defined here as commitment to organizational values which includes commitment to school mission, commitment to professional, and commitment to community-school partnerships.
A survey was carried out in 205 schools involving 3042 elementary teachers from two Ontario districts. All items in the survey were taken from previous studies and rated on six-point scales measured on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Transformational leadership consisted of 12 items measuring teacher perceptions that their principal leads by developing the capacity of the organization and its members to adapt to the demands of a changing environment. Collective teacher efficacy consisted of 14 items developed by Goddard et al. (2000). Teacher commitment to organizational values consisted of three variables: Commitment to school mission consisted of 12 items that measured teachers' acceptance of school goals, their belief that these goals were shared by the staff, and their commitment to reviewing school goals regularly; Commitment to the school as a professional community consisted of 5 items representing teachers' commitment to sharing teaching ideas with each other; and Commitment to school-community partnerships consisted of 4 items measuring teacher commitment to including parents in setting school directions. The adequacy of the commitment variables was tested with confirmatory factor analysis.
The model was tested using path analysis. The raw data were input to SPSS and the variance-covariance matrix was analysed using the maximum likelihood method of AMOS 4.0.
To guard against capitalizing on chance, cross-validation strategy was used by randomly assigning schools within districts to create two groups. The first group was used as the exploration sample to test and refine the model; the second sample was the validation sample in which we replicated the analysis without further model modification. The Chi-square test is the traditional measure used to test the closeness of fit between the observed covariance matrix and the model representation of the covariance matrix. In addition to the Chi-square test, two other indices are reported: the Adjusted Goodness of Fit (AGFI); and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
In this study, the authors found no statistically significant direct effect of leadership on achievement, as expected from previous research. At the same time, schools with higher levels of transformational leadership had higher collective teacher efficacy, greater teacher commitment to school mission, school community, and school-community partnerships, and higher student achievement. Thus, the results suggest that the principals who adopt transformational leadership style have a positive impact on teacher beliefs in collective capacity and commitment to organizational values. Increasing the transformational leadership practices in schools makes a small but practically important contribution to overall student achievement.
The seventh article that is reviewed is a research by John A. Ross and Peter Gray from Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada, titled Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy taken from the School Effectiveness and School Improvement, volume 17, number 2, pages 179 to 199 (2006).
The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effects of teacher efficacy by comparing two models derived from Bandura's social cognitive theory. Model A hypothesized that transformational leadership would contribute to teacher commitment to organizational values exclusively through collective teacher efficacy. Model B hypothesized that leadership would have direct effects on teacher commitment and indirect effects through teacher efficacy.
A survey was carried out in 218 schools involving 3072 elementary teachers from two Ontario districts. The instrument used in this study is exactly the same as the instruments used in the sixth article, where the items are rated on six-point scales measured on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The two models were tested using structural equation modeling. The raw data were input to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and the variance-covariance matrix was analyzed using the maximum likelihood method of AMOS 4.0. To guard against capitalizing on chance, cross-validation strategy was used by randomly assigning schools within districts to create two groups. The first group was used as the calibration sample to test and refine the model, and the second group as the replication sample, testing the fit of the models without modification.
Model A and Model B was examined for each the fit indices and the path coefficients to determine which provided a better fit of the data. In testing the models, they were guided by their theory and informed by the AMOS modification indexes. To test the closeness of fit between the observed covariance matrix and the model representation of the covariance matrix, chi square, AGFI and RMSEA was used.
Data from the study provided greater support for Model B than Model A. collective teacher efficacy is a partial rather than a complete mediator of the effects of transformation leadership on teacher commitment to organizational values. Transformational leadership had an impact on the collective teacher efficacy of the school; teacher efficacy alone predicted teacher commitment to community partnerships; and transformational leadership had direct and indirect effects on teacher commitment to school mission and commitment to professional learning community.
The eighth and final article that is reviewed here is a research by Huen Yu from Hong Kong Institute of Education and Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi from Centre for Leadership Development, OISE/University of Toronto, Canada, titled The effects of transformational leadership on teachers' commitment to change in Hong Kong, taken from the Journal of Educational Administration, volume 40, number 4, pages 368 to 384 (2002).
The purpose of this paper is to report on a research on the effects of principals' transformational leadership practices on teachers' commitment to change in Hong Kong primary schools. The theoretical framework presented in this paper is an adaptation of the framework used by Leithwood et al. (1993). The author acknowledge that the relationship between transformational school leadership and commitment may be both direct and indirect; and that alterable variables other than leadership potentially mediate the effects of school leadership and have their own direct effects on teacher commitment as well.
A survey was carried out in 107 schools involving 3125 primary teachers from Hong Kong. The instrument consisted of 113 items survey and rated on four to six point scales measured on a Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The survey was translated from English into Chinese using the "back translation" method to assure the quality of the Chinese version; it was also pilot tested for further refinement by having local elementary school teachers to complete the questionnaire individually.
SPSSX was used to calculate means, standard deviations, percentages and correlation coefficients. The reliabilities of the scales measuring all variables in the framework were also calculated. All relationships among variables were examined using simple Pearson product correlations and linear regression analysis.
This study shows that transformational leadership impacts employee commitment to organizational change. Effects of transformational leadership on teachers' commitment to change operated similarly in both North America and Hong Kong, but the magnitude of the effects was far less in Hong Kong.
All the eight research projects reviewed in this paper was conducted in many different school systems based on quantitative method approach. The study by Barnett (2003), Geijsel et al (2003), Ross and Gray (2006b) and Yu, Leithwood, and Jantzi (2002) were concerned with the principals' transformational behaviour towards teachers' performance only, while the study by Barnett, McCormick, and Conners (2001), Ross and Gray (2006a), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Koh, Steers, and Terborg (1995), were concerned with the principals' transformational behaviour towards teachers' performance and students' academic achievements.
The available research on the effects of transformational leadership suggests that it is more likely to have a direct impact on organisational processes associated with employee practices, motivation and satisfaction, which in turn are linked to the quality of the service offered and the performance of the organisation.
In Ross and Gray (2006a), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Koh, Steers, and Terborg (1995) studies, positive indirect effects on student outcomes have been identified. Barnett, McCormick, and Conners (2001) study however, reports a significant negative association between transformational leadership behaviour and student outcomes.
In Australia, Barnett, McCormick and Conners (2001) reported that while transformational leadership was positively linked to teacher outcomes such as satisfaction and extra effort, it was negatively associated with student learning culture. An additional issue concerns some of the findings of research on transformational leadership. Based on their findings in Australia, Barnett et al. (2001) argue that, contrary to the assumption of Bass and Avolio (1997), no conceptual differences can be identified between transformational leadership behaviours. In their study, teachers did not draw a distinction between the transformational leadership behaviour of charisma, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation.
Moreover, they found that the teachers in their study did not distinguish between individual concern (transformational leadership behaviour) and contingent reward (transactional leadership behaviour). They considered this to be an indication that "transformational and transactional leadership practices are interwoven and that transformational leadership is effective when it manages to incorporate transactional practices" (Barnett et al., 2001, p. 42). Their most important finding concerned the fact that the transformational leadership behaviour of vision/inspiration was negatively associated with student learning culture. Barnett et al. (2001) suggested that visionary/inspirational principals may direct teachers' efforts to wider school initiatives, thereby distracting them from their teaching and learning goals. If correct, this interpretation has negative implications for the transformational leadership model in relation to its presumed effects on student outcomes.
Yu, Leithwood, and Jantzi (2002) conducted a functional universal perspective research on a group of principals in Hong Kong and found that effects of transformational leadership on teachers' commitment to change operated is similarly in both North America and Hong Kong, but the magnitude of the effects was far less in Hong Kong. This result leads to speculate that the nature of transformational leadership influence on teacher's commitment to change is very similar across cultural context. This work reinforces the findings of a study by Koh, Steers, and Terborg (1995) which was also a study based on a research done in America. From a cross-cultural perspective, observed differences in the factor loadings between the present study and past research indicates that there could be cultural differences, although the magnitude of such differences were not large.
The study by Yu, Leithwood, and Jantzi, (2002) has indicated that there is a weak but significant effect of transformational leadership on teachers' commitment to change and reform. This work reinforces the findings of a study by Geijsel et al. (2003) which demonstrated an effect of transformational leadership on teachers' commitment to school reform.
The two random samples drawn for Ross and Gray (2006a) analysis were not the same random samples used in Ross and Gray (2006b) to investigate a similar set of research questions involving the relationships among leadership and school processes. Ross and Gray (2006b) study did not include student achievement or SES data.
Results of Ross and Gray (2006b) study are considered important by the researchers because this particular study not only identified a significant relationship of transformational leadership to commitment and organizational values, but it also identified the mechanism (collective teacher efficacy); whereby these influences occurred.
These researches assert that transformational leadership influences teachers' professional commitment to school's vision, professional community, school norms of collegiality, collaboration, joint work and also a commitment to community partnerships. Teachers who are more committed to organizational values and its members are more likely to adopt instructional practices encouraged by the organization, assist colleagues, and work harder to achieve organizational goals, contributing to higher levels of student achievements if the school goals are focused on academic achievements.
These research findings are beneficial and can be implemented in school towards building a balanced school culture and producing high-achieving and wholesome human capital. Principals with transformational leadership behaviours have a positive impact on teacher beliefs in collective capacity and commitment to organizational values, and this mediates towards students' grades.
Principals with transformational leadership behaviours would be able to create a highly positive school climate which in return creates a better teaching and learning environment. Principals should overtly influence teacher interpretations of school and classroom achievement data. Teachers need to recognize which of their skills contribute to student achievement, that they control the acquisition and exercise these skills, and that they need to take responsibility for the successes and failures of their students. Principals also should help teachers set feasible, proximal goals to increase the likelihood of mastery experiences. Principals need to provide teachers with access to high quality professional development and provide constructive feedback on their skill acquisition, for efficacy beliefs are most powerful when they are grounded in accurate self-appraisal.
A vast reference was given in all the articles in bibliography form. All of the articles referred to Bass (1985) and Burns (1975) to build up their research and as for support and rebuttal in the issues in their respective research. Bandura (1986) was also prominently used in the building of the frameworks in these articles. All the references used in the articles are current and relevant to their respective researches which in return supports and made the articles reliable to be used in future studies.
In conclusion, principals' transformational leadership behaviours have a direct impact towards their subordinates' or teachers' attitude and performance, and an indirect impact on students' grades which is mediated by the teachers' attitude and classroom measures. The review of the literature clearly points to the need for more studies of the effects of transformational leadership on student outcomes. For, without more evidence on their effects on learning, transformational leadership run the risk of remaining intuitive conceptualisations of leadership, with limited or no impact on educational policy and practice.